7 Comments:

Some observations...I thought it was interesting that he characterised in the singular, ” the object” then clarified what he saw as two “objects” rather than humanoid characters that turned toward him and denied they were “people” earlier in the interview when the interviewer characterised them as such. This brought to mind that if there were no humanoids involved, it possibly changes the nature and purpose of the vehicle if this is so. I have the sense this was staged and not accidental meaning it was meant to be observed. It was lying in wait as it was perfectly capable of making an exit when circumstances were highly probable that another individual was approaching. The timing of the take off is interesting as it suggests an observation of the general area. The coveralls then seems descriptive of shapes that were more of a matching perception to familiar objects.

The amount of leading questions posed by interviewer was not helpful. I got the definite impression that the officer would have preferred to be somewhere else as well as wishing it never happened just by the inflection and nature of his responses.

In thinking of all the possible atmospheres in the universe and the difficulties of refueling, this "old time" system of propulsion by combustion is highly improbable. While not convinced of the hoax aspect, it seems more probable this was a terrestrially based object..if it was an object.I noted also while he quickly refuted it was directly associated with "people" ( humanoids) he failed to do so with the symbol which would have been easy to do without giving away the candy store.

A transcript of the interview is here (along with another shorter interview by Streeter Stuart of NICAP):

http://www.roswellproof.com/Socorro/Socorro_Zamora_interview.html

You'll also see links to transcripts of interviews with Hynek, the Socorro newspaper publisher Louis Reidel, and the gas station operator Opel Grinder about the tourists who reported the object flying over them and seeing the policeman give chase.

Some "hoax".

Also against a hoax is the object departing AGAINST a stiff wind, yes, the high speed, and physical evidence left behind on the ground (landing mark depressions, singed ground and brush still smoking when police backup arrived within minutes, and the ABSENCE of any track evidence or paraphernalia of the presence of postulated hoaxers.

Chemical rockets would have excavated a sizable crater where none was found (just burns) so Larry and I would probably agree some sort of plasma engine (or high energy particle beam) to explain absence of crater and burn patterns, not exactly a conventional propulsion system. Then after "lifting off", the object transitioned to a totally silent propulsion system (again which propelled the object AGAINST the wind at high speed), so again, NOT a conventional propulsion system (and certainly no silly/impossible hoax balloon).

This whole debate over the "true" insignia is likewise silly and pointless (unless you can actually find a human agency testing advanced propulsion systems that used it despite a half century of total failure by anybody to find such an agency). Besides, is a triangle or circle or V or line inherently human or alien, or just a basic geometrical shape that any intelligent technological species familiar with mathematics would be aware of?

In terms of velocity being explained by a unconventional from of propulsion, I have attended amateur rocket meets and their velocity is rapid enough to have difficulty following their ascent. The unknown composition of the vehicle and it's weight is another in terms of the thrust needed.On the other hand, it would have been a short range vehicle if conventionally fueled. Wheres the launch site?I am not convinced at all of an extraterrestrial vehicle on the basis of unanswered questions as it is simply another theory, not a fall back position.This is the issue with this kind of presumptive logic.For myself, it remains unknown as to it's nature and any further conjecture is simply conjecture wherever it may fall and does not over ride common sense.Either one knows or does not. In this case, no one knows despite opinions to the contrary.

DonMy comments were initially based on the subject of this post which is this specific interview undertaken shortly after the incident occurred. In terms of odd beings ( if this is the case ) characterized and identified as strictly extraterrestrial of course there is no hard evidence to assume this other than appearances ( one object-then two objects) which then leads to the shortest distance between two points which is contradicted by the enormous varieties of appearances of odd beings by type. From this interview, it is easy to see Zamora himself was uncertain as to what he witnessed.For my purposes saying there is enough evidence to determine this was an extraterrestrial event is analogous with “jumping to conclusions.” Others may differ. Its the nature of the beast to create selective categorizations of an unknown.